Opinion
KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321), United States Attorney, MARK L. KROTOSKI (CSBN 138549), Chief, Criminal Division, TAMARA WEBER (ILSBN 6270925), Special Assistant United States Attorney, SETH CHAZIN, Attorney for FRANK LOUIS SMEDILE. San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
ORDER AND STIPULATION (1) VACATING JANUARY 17, 2007 HEARING AND SETTING MARCH 20, 2007 HEARING; AND (2) WAIVING TIME. UNDER RULE 5.1 AND EXCLUDING TIME FROM JANUARY 17. 2007 TO MARCH 20, 2007 FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. §. 3161(h)(8)(A))
EDWARD M. CHEN, Magistrate Judge.
With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court enters this order (1) vacating the January 17, 2007 preliminary hearing date and scheduling a new preliminary hearing date of March 20, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.; (2) documenting the defendant's waiver of time limits under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1; and (3) documenting the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), from January 17, 2007 to March 20, 2007. The parties have agreed, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:
1. The defendant waived the time limits for a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1. Failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant and the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny government counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation because there has been a change of counsel from AUSA Tracie Brown to SAUSA Tamara Weber.
2. In addition, both defense and government counsel need to review the electronic evidence in the case prior to charging the case and negotiating a possible disposition. Although the government was expecting its forensic analysis to be completed by the currently scheduled preliminary hearing date of January 17, 2007, the government still has not received reports from the forensic analysis that is to be done on electronic evidence seized from the Defendant at the airport and via search warrant at his home. The parties expect to review the electronic discovery and discuss the possibility of a pre-indictment resolution of the case.
3. The defendant has agreed to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny both government and defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would deny the defendant and the government continuity of counsel.
4. Given these circumstances, the Court found that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from January 17, 2006 to March 20, 2007, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A).
5. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court ordered that the period from January 17, 2007 to March 20, 2007 be excluded from Speedy Trial calculations under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).
6. The Court hereby vacates the January 17, 2007 preliminary hearing/arraignment date and schedules a new preliminary hearing/arraignment date of March 20, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., before the duty Magistrate.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.